Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1432 (RAJ)

Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2006-05-01

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-appellant Dharmendra Kumar S/o Shri Khushi Ram @ Sukhveer preferred this appeal from Jail through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur, challenging his conviction and sentence awarded to him vide judgment and order dated 25.3.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2. Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 145/2002 (9/2002), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-II, IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment, and under Section 323 IPC to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued the appeal vehemently on merits but looking to the statement of eye witness PW-3 Nand Ram and corroboration of his statement with the medical-evidence, he confined his arguments on the question of sentence only. The learned counsel contended that the accused-appellant was arrested on 28th of June, 2002 and since then he is in custody, therefore, he has already undergone the sentence of 3 years 10 months and 3 days imprisonment, therefore, his sentence of imprisonment be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and minutely scanned the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial court. 5. On 27th of June, 2002 complainant Sajjan Kumar lodged a written-report about death of his brother Ramaotar on 26th of June, 2002. The FIR was registered and after investigation of the case the police fled a challan under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. The accused was charged but he denied the same, therefore, the trial was conducted. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 13 witnesses. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence on the record came to a conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the accused-appellant to commit murder of deceased Ramaotar but the incident took place all of a sudden. The accused-appellant as well as the deceased both took liquor together but on account of demand of some money they quarrelled with each other. The accused-appellant as well as the deceased both took liquor together but on account of demand of some money they quarrelled with each other. Accused-appellant Dharmendra inflicted injuries by belt and fist on the person of deceased Ramaotar as a result of which he died. The learned trial court acquitted the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC but convicted him under Section 304-II, IPC for inflicting injuries on the person of deceased Ramaotar and under Section 323 IPC for inflicting injuries on the person of Nand Ram (PW-3). 6. After considering the evidence on the record in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant I am satisfied that the learned counsel rightly confined his arguments only for the purpose of reduction of sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the trial court. The manner in which the incident took place and looking to the nature of injuries and the weapon used in the incident, show that the learned trial court committed an illegality in awarding maximum sentence of imprisonment of ten years to the accused-appellant whereas in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view, the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-appellant by the trial court is reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to a period of five years rigorous imprisonment. 7. Consequently, the appeal of the accused-appellant is partly allowed. His conviction under Sections 304-II and 323 IPC is upheld. The sentence of imprisonment and fine under Section 323 IPC is also maintained. However, the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment) under Section 304-II, IPC, awarded to the accused-appellant by the trial court is reduced to a period of sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days additional simple imprisonment.Appeal Partly allowed. *******